Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Anyone here believe that global warming zealots want to stop at 19%?
Germany may introduce ‘meat tax’ to protect the environment
Currently meat has reduced tax rate of 7 per cent but politicians say it should increase to 19
Phoebe Weston Science Correspondent @phoeb0
1 day ago
Germany could introduce a “meat tax” to protect the climate and improve animal welfare.Currently meat in the country has a reduced tax rate of seven per cent but the Social Democrat party and the Greens are arguing that this should increase to the standard 19 per cent, with additional revenue spent on improving animal welfare.
“I am in favour of abolishing the VAT reduction for meat and earmarking it for more animal welfare,” Friedrich Ostendorf, agricultural policy spokesperson for the Greens told The Local website.
He said it mad “no sense” that meat was taxed at seven per cent while oat milk is taxed at 19 per cent.
…
Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/german-meat-tax-environment-animal-welfare-a9045271.html
While most people think of Germans as wealthy, there is a lot of poverty in Germany. According to a DW article in 2018, around 20% of Germans are struggling to pay their bills and heat their homes. This new meat tax if passed will simply add to their already intolerable burden.
So to be clear, with the current tax system the meat industry is essentially being subsidized via a far lower tax rate than the standard 19%. All they want to do is take away that subsidy. Sounds fair to me. I don’t know why it was even there to begin with.
What a distorted view, First, not being taxed, or taxed less, is not a subsidy. Secondly, the meat industry is not getting the benefit of it, the consumer is. The problem is not that there are lower taxes on meat; it’s that there are taxes on food to begin with.
An extension of your logic would mean that everything not being taxed is being subsidized. From my understanding (i.e., NOT personal experience!) Germany has commercial establishments where people can engage in mutually agreed upon physical activity for a price (I think you understand). I would bet bottom (bad choice of words) dollar that that activity is taxed. I would also bet that married couples do not pay such a tax, although they engage in the same activity, and one may even derive a financial benefit. Is that a subsidy for married people? Should married couples be required to pay taxes for that, too?
People pay steep taxes to breath cigarette smoke. Are people who breath natural air getting a subsidy? I fear those with similar twisted logic will think so, and one day tax us for breathing.
Your view is the distorted one, and you have distorted what I said, using the typical tactic of straw man “logic”. Moron.
Not at all. You clearly view a lack of taxation of a similar product as a subsidy. Product A was not taxed as Product B, therefore Product A is being subsidised. Substitute ‘meat’ as Product A, and ‘other foods’ as Product B, and you have your exact position.
That you can not defend the generic structure of your logic speaks volumes, as well as your retreat to name-calling. If you cannot argue your view civilly, this may be the wrong site for you.
A 19% meat tax to combat Global Warming?
I guess their agenda is safe.
No meat
It was a media stunt ahead of todays release of the IPCC report guess what it recommends
https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/
Just another money grab under the guise of “Climate Change”
I think it’s a good thing something called “oat milk” is taxed at 19%. Heck, tax it at 50%, I’m not going anywhere near the stuff. 😉
How, exactly, does one milk an oat?
Very small milk-persons, sitting on very small stools.
With very small fingers.
Let’s see, what can we tax next.. carbonated drinks, obviously, and beer! don’t forget beer. Then there’s bread of course, lot’s of CO2 in bread, and so many types! Bagels, baps, buns, ciabatta, focaccia, the list is endless.. and cakes! mustn’t forget cakes. But is 19% enough?.. Let’s make it 25%.. or 30%..
OK, let’s try to focus on important things. Like that hot dog. Is that bacon garnish? The caption says Monk’s Hot Dog, but the only thing I can find is the Buddhist monk who tells the hot dog vendor, “Make me one with everything”.
The German people tolerated high electric and fuels costs. They (somewhat) tolerated windmills and an erratic grid. But now, they’re threatening their bratwurst. It could get ugly.
Having spent considerable time in Germany, if they really want to trigger an insurrection, just tax both meat and beer exorbitantly.
Well, beer does release CO2, for the benefit of any plants in the area.
Taxing meat in Germany is equivalent to taxing pork in China. Germans will not bend over that far.
I was going to say something similar. Germans love their cold meat breakfasts and sausage!
Presumably it will also encompass meat products ranging from pet food to paint and …. too many other things to list here. All while need to distinguish between animal and vegetable sources for the same product.
So it’s good news for bureaucrats and label manufacturers .
Bad news for foot ware manufacturers as they experience a shoe event horizon driven by the demonization of leather as well as plastics
Typical government approach to life. What will the unintended consequences of this be, I wonder? Firstly, a new trade in “under-the-counter meat products, meat smuggling, and meat trading? That sounds like a recipe for health concerns: “Wanna buy a chicken, guv? Only been dead a week – hardly green at all!” Lots of dubious “meat with tubes” smuggled in from Poland.
Then we have people who will want to raise their own meat animals – lots of new backyard “farmers” who will not have the required permits and health and safety inspections, so a roaring trade in fines and court appearances – may be a net win for the government. Also an animal health issue, with animals kept in inappropriate conditions. Well done vegans!
Increased hunting. The wild boar population will take a hit (probably a good thing), and rabbits will be very nervous. Poor vegans having to see all the fluffy bunnies blown to bits because of their food-nazi enforced, virtue-signalling group-think.
I’m quite fond of vegans, but I couldn’t eat a whole one. Not all in one go, anyway.
One unintended consequence, at least in my country, would be more hunters, more guns, and more ammo, in direct conflict with the goals of other, very vocal, groups.
As of this evening, there are already reports that the public would not stand for this.
Hey, they voted for the people making these laws.
If they want to support politicians who suffer from the delusion that taxing their people into poverty will cool down the planet, not to mention the delusion that the planet is too hot and needs to be cooled, that is something the majority over there decided they want to do.
“This new meat tax if passed will simply add to their already intolerable burden.”
Rubbish, a vegetarian diet is cheaper and healthier.
Until it is discovered that human do need animal meat based protein. Oh wait…
Typical, pathetic, meat deprived, anaemic vegan.
Rubbish, a vegetarian diet is cheaper and healthier.
Eeeek!
I just got done going through a big medical survey where they detailed all the illnesses and dietary inadequacies which had health effects, all due to vegetarian and vegan diets.
Thanks, but no thanks.
“Vegan is healthier”, a myth perpetrated by the usual subjects. After what I have just seen in that study, I would love to see some medical data purporting to show the premise “Vegan is healthier”.
On a somewhat related note:
One of the saddest fads is cat loving vegans putting their cats on vegan diets. Because it is so much better. As you may know, cats are obligate carnivores, and cannot survive on a plant based diet. Very sadly, their malnutrition causes the animal to go blind, then suffer terribly, then die.
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea:
We are not carnivores, we are omnivores. We have a much easier time achieving proper nutrition with a mix.
What specific”dietary inadequacies”? B12? Yes vegans need a supplement. Anything else? Did they mention illnesses or health effects due to meat eating?
“Vegan is healthier”, I said “Vegetarian is healthier”
According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
Indubitable healthier.
Ah Loydo. On the level of ‘climate science’ with selective omissions and cherry-picking. 1) “appropriately planned vegetarian diet” – careful omission of the fact that this very rare and takes enormous and constant management – something a normal omnivore diet does not require to anything like that degree, especially for normal mental development in children ( so no, it really isn’t a suitable diet, particularly for growing children, because the probabilities of failure of adequate nutrition are substantively higher 2)The reason the Belgian Health authorities declared feeding a child a Vegan diet – because of measurable and repeated hospital admission related data – was child abuse, was because of the damage to the developing brain and nervous system. And it wasn’t just B12 either. There are a range of micronutrients and fats involved, most likely. 3) The claims of ‘better’ outcomes are rather like ‘it’s hotter in our urban heat island so the world is boiling’ – their data failed to separate the fact that vegans and vegetarians tend to come from upper middle class backgrounds and have higher levels of education, and are thus more likely to exercise, and less likely to smoke or drink to excess, than the entire population. A comparison of people of the same background, exercise regime etc, who ate healthily (often many of the same foods they commend) but also ate meat and fish in moderation I suspect would toss your ‘proof’ out the window, simply because they’re far more likely to ‘get’ some nutrients the vegetarians and vegans miss.
However: I’d like to propose an alternate thesis – compared to a similar group of peers (same social strata, same approximate educational strata, exercise regime etc.) Vegans or Vegetarians are far more likely (proportional to their numbers) to indulge in extremist and often illogical activism, and also far more likely to have psychological and mental health issues. Whether this is their diet affecting their cognitive ability or the just that the same traits in their character lead them into vegetarian/vegan diets, extremism, and mental health issues, would require careful research. Of course that’s not all vegetarians or vegans, but the probability is much higher.
Loydo, cholesterol does not cause coronary heart disease or stroke, cholesterol is found in the arteries of people with IHD because it is part of the inflammatory process.
Fat does not make people fat, carbohydrates may do.
Obesity may not cause type 2 DM, but Type 2 DM/insulin resistance may cause obesity (not everyone who is obese has diabetes and not everyone with Type 2 diabetes is obese).
Corelation does not equal causation.
I suggest that you look at:
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
Read “the great cholesterol con” by Dr. Kendrick, who is a practising GP
“Doctoring data” by the same author is worth a read.
Also search for Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX1vBA9bLNk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfVaOqLUbZA&t=39s
Let me join with the others is condemning the spurious claim that vegetarianism or veganism is “healthier.
Your average vegetarian is also far less likely to smoke, drink excessive alcohol or eat the average amount of sugary and highly processed foods…….. all of which have been found to have adverse health effects.
Without controlling for other dietary, lifestyle, environmental and workplace variables, to claim that the difference in specific health outcomes relates to just ONE variable – consumption or not of meat – is an extreme example of “junk science”.
What is more, none of this so-called “research” is based on random controlled clinical trials….. the kind of trial that would require locking up something like 500 pairs of identical twins in controlled environments and fed controlled diets.
Try doing that for years, if not cradle-to-grave, without busting almost every basic Human Right.
Are you going to wade in and “condemn the spurious claim” that a lack of meat is unhealthy too? No, I didn’t think so.
I actually conducted the sort of controlled experiment you’re describing: I ate meat for thirty seven years, then I ate no meat for 20. I feel much better eating no meat.
TonyL
The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals in the U.K. managed to get a small change in the law recently making it an offence to put cats and dogs on a vegetarian diet because it is unnatural and cruel. Very sensible.
The irony is that this means that yet again (BSE outbreak) Animals enjoy better food protection in the U.K. than children being force fed by crazy parents.
TonyL, could you link the study? I’d like to read it.
My SiL went vegan, yellow teeth sallow complexion, bad breath and an insufferable habit of telling you how great it was.
Every 5 minutes.
I was musing on similar issues and realise that we are looking at these ‘solutions’ all wrong.
As Greta the Nordic Thanos likes to point out, children are important. After all, the logic goes, they are the ones who need to live in the future we are making now.
Good point. So therefore it is also logical that children, as well as taking greater responsibility for raising awareness, also need to take greater active involvement in the so called ‘solution’.
What we really need is a tax directly aimed at the under 18s. If they want to live in the future, they need to start investing in it, and the best way to invest is clearly to give the government some of your cash.
So, what I propose is that the U-18s should be taxed normally, exactly the same as everyone else just to be completely fair, and then have a Future Levy deduced from their net annual. Say 50%
The future remember. Important place the future. No point taxing old people because they are about to die and plus, they have already spent their entire lives producing the present that the youth of today get to live in.
Now of course as you age you are still going to be part of the future, which is why I also propose that 18 is only the current upper age limit. Each year we shall increase it by 1, so this year it will be under 18s, next year under 19s and so on.
Sure it might seem harsh, but hey, The Future!
I am sure Saint Greta would agree. And even if she doesn’t, The Future!
There you go kiddies, Saint Greta, or at least one of her handlers, or at least one of the multitudes willing to manipulate her IP for their own personal agendas, has SPOKEN.
I thought they were funny. You bitch about Dan’s stupid jokes- do you bitch about Loydo / Griff’s incessant stupid trolling? Now we’re going to control what is posted to suit your delicate sensibilities- where does it end? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who will watch the joke moderators to ensure they are not blocking “real science”?
Knock it off Cube I am not Griff. Ask a mod.
Don’t think this is Germanys problem I was listening in on Australians propaganda arm of the sociopathic left and guess what they were talking about with great enthusiasm? Limiting beef etc and pro beans….beans, beans the magical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. I guess that counts beans out as well? I have also heard these bizarre little people talking up the benefits of cockroaches, other bugs…..and maggots. I kid you not. Gone are the days of Peking Duck, now is the time of Writhing Pie….sick sad world.
This non-issue and Global Warming are just a smokescreen to take the attention off of the Jihad Invasion.
Burger, Schnitzel, Frikadelle, oder die Wurst — Ja. 😀 (mit 🍺🍺,🍺🍺🍺 ) 😙
Fleischlose Burger, vegetarische Schnitzel, vegane Wurst — nein! 😟 😛 😧
Another consequence of this is all domestic cats will have to be euthanised as they cannot survive on a meat free diet (unlike dogs).
Then there is the question about carnivores in zoos that are there because they are endangered, can you have a vegan big cat for example, I don’t think tigers really eat sugar coated cornflakes, despite what Kellog’s may say.
This is a (deliberately?) misleading headline. The proposal is not to introduce a 19% tax on meat but to to abolish the existing concession by which meat is taxed at a lower rate than most foodstuffs. I’m not taking a position on this. Just clarifying. In the UK where I live food in general is 0% VAT.
..In Canada, there is zero tax on food…for a reason..
I heard that if you hit the lottery in Canada,your winnings are tax free.Is that true?
…yes, no matter the amount..
In relatively tax-happy Michigan, food sales tax is zero.
How will Germany tax rat meat, when rat is all the citizens can afford to eat?
So much excitation about what?
Nothing.
I didn’t check for that, OK, but I guess that not one of the commenters is aware that in Germany, even water is taxed at 19 % instead of the usual 7 % for food and similar stuff.
And the lobbies are still today running with full power against alcohol taxed at 19 %.
Thus meat taxed at 19 % VAT? Why not.
Eating less meat doesn’t make vegans out of us.
Water from a tap is taxed at the 7% level, it’s only bottled water that gets 19%. But that’s just a nit, you appear to have the situation correct — drinks, including bottled water and oat milk, are taxed at 19%. Foodstuffs, including meat, is taxed at 7%. The comparison of meat to “oat milk” in the OP is disingenous, oat milk is taxed at a higher rate not because it is from oats, but because it is a drink. Oats are taxed at 7%. Meat is taxed at a lower meat not because it is meat, but because it is a food. If it were turned into a meat-based drink, it would be taxed at 19%.
So the call to tax meat at 19% is not revoking some special tax break that only meat gets, it is in fact imposing a punitive tax for purchasing meat instead of other foodstuffs that will continue to be taxed at 7%.
What Europe needs today is a good stiff recession kick in the pants…..
Germany : Merchandise Trade
Released On 8/9/2019 2:00:00 AM For Jun, 2019
Prior Actual
Level E18.7 B E18.1 B
Imports-M/M -0.5 % 0.5 %
Imports-Y/Y 4.9 % -4.4 %
Exports-M/M 1.1 % -0.1 %
Exports-Y/Y 4.5 % -8.0 %
Highlights
The seasonally adjusted surplus stood at €18.1 billion in June, down from an unrevised €18.7 billion in May. Unadjusted, the black ink was €16.8 billion, a 29 percent decline versus a year ago.
—————-
United Kingdom : GDP
Released On 8/9/2019 4:30:00 AM For Q2p, 2019
Prior Consensus Actual
Quarter over Quarter 0.5 % 0.0 % -0.2 %
Year over Year 1.8 % 1.4 % 1.2 %
Highlights
Real GDP provisionally and surprisingly contracted at a 0.2 percent quarterly rate in the second quarter after expanding 0.5 percent in the previous period. The first quarterly slump since the fourth quarter of 2012 came as a surprise to analysts expecting a flat reading and pulled down annual growth from 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent.
Weakness was broadbased, but the main contributor to the headline decline was a 1.4 percent fall in production sector output led by a 2.3 percent drop in manufacturing. Noteworthy within manufacturing weakness was a 5.2 percent decline in transport equipment as auto assembly lines were idled in April, a 6.2 percent drop in chemicals and chemical products, and a fall of 6.5 percent in coke and petroleum products.
Weak business investment also subtracted from economic performance during the quarter, falling 0.5 percent, as did construction, which fell 1.3 percent.
Of the places I’ve traveled, Germany is perhaps the closest to the U.S. as a “meat & potatoes” country. They love their meat. This will put a serious dent in the finances so many poor and middle class German folk. They already have some of the world’s highest energy prices thanks in large part to their push for renewables.
I’m lucky. Here in Iowa, there is no sales tax on meat, vegtables, fruit, etc. (any non-processed or “value added” food stuff). Why not help people afford food? Electricity rates are pretty low, although increasing as our primary utility “invests” (other peoples’ money) in wind farms which increasingly spoil our wonderful landscape here in the central part of the state.
Awhile back, I went on an Atkins type diet. Lots of meat, cheese, some vegtables. Lost 40 pounds, significantly improved my blood sugar and cholesterol levels, and was able to discontinue my blood pressure meds. (I inherited hypertension and my bp was borderline even when I was wrestling in high school and fit as a fiddle.) — Vegetarians/vegans can go their way. I prefer mine.
+1 thanks
except -1 for Field of Ethanol Dreams in Iowa
So zero net earned.
Just for the record, the standard VAT rate (purchase tax) in Germany is 19%. However, food is taxed at a “reduced rate” of 7%.
A lot of thinking on rebalancing food production seems to have been drawn from the recent study by Poore and Nemecek:- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325532198_Reducing_food's_environmental_impacts_through_producers_and_consumers
It is an important effort and certainly merits some study. There may be some strong non-GHG reasons why some targeted rebalancing is desirable. However, there are several things which puzzle me about the work.
First, I am struggling to understand why the evaluation of GHG contribution seems to be limited to emissions during the farming process without considering the net effects. Cows cannot create a carbon atom. Animal pasture absorbs carbon dioxide and plants grow. Cows eat the plants and convert some of the carbon to body mass. The rest is evacuated by breathing, enteric fermentation (farting) and defecation. There can be no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere in this process. We eat the cow, and convert some of the carbon to body mass; the rest is evacuated by breathing, enteric fermentation and defecation. There is still no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere. You could argue that there is a temporary conversion of some CO2 to methane, which increases CO2eq. However, if the population of cows and humans is stable then there is still no net addition from this process once a steady-state is achieved. The contribution of “enteric fermentation” constitutes well over half (actually up to 75%) of the GHG contribution attributed to animal farming.
Second, the study makes the point that a much larger area of land is required to produce similar quantities of proteins and calories from meat than from arable farming, which I am sure is true as far as it goeson simple measures. However, the study makes little distinction between the type of land used. A lot of land which is used for sheep and goat farming, for example, covers vast areas (think hill farming) and the land is inappropriate for arable farming. In some countries migrant herds are moved (over vast areas, once again) to take advantage of intermittent grazing normally determined by water availability. It would be more interesting I believe to see some estimates of how much potentially naturally arable land is used for animal farming. Stopping this type of farming would subtract a huge amount of land area from the total attributable to animal farming, but would not add anything to arable land availability.
Third, the study makes no mention of the critical benefits of animal farming to the environment and food security. I would refer readers to an excellent article on this subject written on a blog which is a strong supporter of urgent action on AGW:- https://climateandcapitalism.com/2018/06/26/why-avoiding-meat-and-dairy-wont-save-the-planet/